Talk:Efficiency movement

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States History

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Brandeis and the railroad rate case

This article would benefit from a discussion of Brandeis' scientific management arguments before the ICC in 1910 and their impact on the era. Ehusman 17:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the attribution of "one best way" to Taylor is in error. Taylorism involved setting time standards for jobs and firing workers who didn't meet the standard. Gilbreth, by contrast, argued that there was no point in timing a worker who was doing the job wrong. He argued that at any state of the art, there was "one best way" to do the job, and that this "one best way" would change as new tools and machines came into use. He argued that it was the job of management to find the "one best way" and train the workers in it before timing them. When I taught Management, I told my students to think of Taylor with a stopwatch, and Gilbreth with a movie camera, the latter to be used to discover whether workers were making unnecessary motions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.137.91 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the paragraph about Obama. (1) I know you like him and all that jazz, but he really doesn't need an advert in an article about a political movement that ended some 77 years ago. (2) 'Many' is vague, uncited and completely up to interpretation. (3) Seriously ... do we really need to discuss this? --Chipmonker (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Gilbreth and Deming. Brandeis indeed should be added Rjensen (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some info on Brandeis including the railroad initiative under the Antitrust subheading. Let me know if you have questions about the edits. Thanks. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two above is correct. "One best way" is from the Gilbreths, not Taylor. I don't really know a good way to rephrase it though. 72.19.88.97 (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is "model as witnesses" supposed to be (Britain) - output of speech recognition maybe, but I can't guess the intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.224.9 (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) samee converse 20:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency Movement → Efficiency movement – There is no suggestion in the cited sources, nor in books more generally, that this is a proper name, so per MOS:CAPS, it should not be capped thus. Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per MOS:ISMCAPS. Primergrey (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per MOS:ISMCAPS and similar guidance at MOS:DOCTCAPS. Jmar67 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.